Re: Document versioning

Subject: Re: Document versioning
From: Shawn <shawn -at- cohodata -dot- com>
To: Margaret Cekis <Margaret -dot- Cekis -at- comcast -dot- net>
Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2014 08:44:51 -0700

*Thank you Margaret and Jay!Excellent suggestion.After a bit of tweaking,
consultation with an esteemed colleague, and combined with your suggestion,
this is what I have come up with:Versioning scheme: XX.xx.zz.yy.00 [draft
x] XX - Software revision (major release) xx - Software revision (minor
release) zz - Document name (99 possible documents - reuse numbers as
documents retire) examples: 10 = user guide, 20 = setup guide,
etc. yy - Document release (incremental hex value offers 255 revisions to a
single document)00 - Document special identifier (value will indicate
localization or other special releases) examples: NA - English
(North America), ES - Spanish (North America) [draft âaâ] - during the
draft stage only. Increment letters for each subsequent draft
release.Example: <> - A user guide, 3rd
release, associated with s/w revision 2.0 for English North America.I
dropped the date from the version scheme because the publishing date is
always automatically inserted into every document. Additionally, the
software revision is also a good indication of the document's chronological
placement.I welcome any thoughts or criticisms.Happy Friday, all!*

On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 7:47 AM, Margaret Cekis <Margaret -dot- Cekis -at- comcast -dot- net>

> Shawn Connelly described his revised document numbering system:
> " BTW, my part number scheme is: x.x.1414.02.01.00
> x.x - Software revision associated with this document
> 1414 - Year and month of document release
> 02 - Major release
> 01 - Minor release
> 00 - Document type identifier (i.e. 00 - English NA version, other values
> will indicate localization or other special releases) - I haven't decided
> yet but if I use hexadecimal for this value, I can allow for 255 variations
> of a document type.
> This documentation department is new (just me now) and I want a scheme that
> won't need to be revised by allowing for all those unknown unknowns. Love
> to hear your opinions about this document numbering scheme. "
> ___________________________________________
> Shawn:
> I'd go with the 2-letter alphabetical code for the document type. People
> will remember the most common ones, and I don't think you'll have 255
> document types. ( And if I remember my math for permutations and
> combinations, a 2-letter code will provide approx 26X25/2, or 325 possible
> combinations.)
> Margaret Cekis, Johns Creek GA

*Shawn Connelly*
Technical writer
<shawn -at- cohodata -dot- com>

Read about how Georgia System Operation Corporation improved teamwork, communication, and efficiency using Doc-To-Help |


You are currently subscribed to TECHWR-L as archive -at- web -dot- techwr-l -dot- com -dot-

To unsubscribe send a blank email to
techwr-l-leave -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com

Send administrative questions to admin -at- techwr-l -dot- com -dot- Visit for more resources and info.

Looking for articles on Technical Communications? Head over to our online magazine at

Looking for the archived Techwr-l email discussions? Search our public email archives @


Re: Document versioning: From: Shawn
RE: Document versioning: From: Margaret Cekis

Previous by Author: Re: Document versioning
Next by Author: Re: iPhone 5 + iOS 8.0.1/2 = no cell service :(
Previous by Thread: RE: Document versioning
Next by Thread: RE: Document versioning

What this post helpful? Share it with friends and colleagues:

Sponsored Ads